Free BARS Performance Review Template | Excel with Auto-Calculations & Behavioral Anchors
Free BARS Performance Review Template | Excel with Auto-Calculations & Behavioral Anchors
Did you know that 61% of employees in Germany and Austria consider performance reviews unfair, mainly because they are left in the dark about how ratings are decided? This perception is often amplified when performance management software is introduced without clear rules, transparency, or proper involvement of the works council.
If you roll out performance management software in the DACH region and skip structured co-determination, you risk delays, mistrust, and even having to shut the system down again. This article gives you a practical, step-by-step performance management software works council checklist you can use to align any tool with co-determination requirements in Germany and Austria.
You will find:
- Why works councils must be involved from day one
- What issues trigger red flags, from data collection to AI features
- A ready-to-use performance management software works council checklist grouped into 5 areas
- How to prepare for negotiations with the works council and avoid legal and trust issues
Let’s break down what every HR team should have on the table before the next meeting with the works council.
1. Why performance management software is a co-determination issue in DACH
Rolling out performance management software in Germany or Austria is never just an IT upgrade. Under German law, introducing or changing systematic performance appraisal processes is a co-determination topic. Section 94 of the Works Constitution Act (BetrVG §94) gives works councils formal co-determination rights over “assessment principles” such as evaluation criteria and rating scales, not only over the tool itself.
Legal experts point out that systematic performance evaluation, especially if linked to classification or pay, always triggers co-determination. The works council must be involved in defining principles and criteria for classification and rating, even if management decides whether appraisals take place at all. Rotwang Law highlights that ignoring co-determination here frequently leads to disputes and implementation stops.
Empirical research shows that companies with active works councils are more likely to have formal appraisals and to use them in bonus systems. An IZA study found that works councils tend to push for more structured evaluations, especially when linked to pay, to ensure fairness and transparency across the workforce (IZA Discussion Paper 12670).
A practical example: A mid-sized tech company in Berlin (around 250 employees) tried to roll out a US-style performance tool with forced ranking and unclear retention settings. The works council was only informed two weeks before go-live. Result: the council stopped the rollout, demanded full transparency on rating logic and a retention schedule, and the project was delayed by 6 months while HR re-negotiated criteria and configurations.
To avoid this, HR should treat every new or redesigned performance management system as a co-determination project from the start. That means early involvement of the works council, clear documentation, and a structured performance management software works council checklist prepared before any formal consultation.
| Trigger event | Works council involvement? | Risk if ignored |
|---|---|---|
| New performance management software rollout | Yes, as systematic evaluation | Delays, blocked go-live, rework |
| Change of rating criteria or scales | Yes, “assessment principles” | Disputes, lack of legal security |
| Linking reviews directly to bonuses or pay bands | Yes, often extra agreement needed | Complaints, potential legal challenges |
If you understand why performance systems fall under co-determination, the next step is to anticipate what your works council will focus on.
2. What works councils care about in performance review systems
Works councils are usually not anti-performance management. They want fair processes, transparent data use, and strong employee rights. When you present a new performance tool, they will typically focus on 7–8 core themes.
2.1 Data types collected
Works councils will ask exactly which data the software stores and why. That includes numeric scores, written comments, goals, competency ratings, attendance metrics, and any behavioural or potential ratings.
- They expect all fields to be job-relevant and proportionate.
- Sensitive data (health, union membership, private life) should not be captured at all.
- Open text fields for “notes” may raise questions if they are not clearly restricted.
2.2 Transparency for employees
Employees must be able to see what is written about them. Research on performance review bias shows that 61% of employees feel reviews are unfair, often because they lack visibility into criteria and feedback content (Sprad analysis on review biases).
- Works councils usually insist that employees can view the full review, including manager comments and final ratings.
- They also expect a clear path for employees to add comments, respond, or correct factual errors.
- Hidden “manager-only” notes are a frequent red flag.
2.3 Rating scales, calibration and criteria
BetrVG §94 explicitly covers “assessment principles”. Councils will examine:
- Rating scales (e.g. 1–5, “Exceeds/Meets/Below”).
- Criteria definitions, competencies, and behaviour descriptions.
- Use of forced distribution or stack ranking.
They tend to prefer clear, behaviour-based descriptions over vague labels. Forced ranking that pushes a fixed percentage into “low performer” categories often meets strong resistance, especially without agreed justification.
2.4 Links to pay, promotion and termination
Any connection between performance ratings and pay, bonuses, promotions, demotions, or dismissals is critical. Legal commentary highlights that when evaluation systems directly affect pay or classification, additional co-determination can apply and separate agreements are often required.
- Councils will ask whether low scores trigger automatic consequences.
- They want assurance that reviews support development, not automatic sanctioning.
- They often push for separate, co-determined processes for performance improvement plans or disciplinary measures.
2.5 Access rights and audit logs
The question “who sees what, and when” is central.
- Managers should only see their own team’s reviews.
- HR should usually access data at an aggregated level or with clear purpose.
- IT admins may have technical access but not use data for HR decisions.
- Audit logs should track who viewed or changed which review and when.
2.6 Retention and deletion
Works councils want defined retention periods. Keeping detailed performance histories forever is rarely acceptable.
- They expect clear retention rules (for example 3–5 years) and automatic deletion or anonymisation after that.
- The policy must align with GDPR, including rights to rectification and erasure.
- Ex-employee data is particularly sensitive once the employment relationship ends.
2.7 Algorithmic and AI support
If your software uses AI or automated scoring in any way, expect detailed questions.
- Does AI merely suggest text, or does it influence scores and decisions?
- Can managers fully override AI outputs?
- Where are models hosted, and which data is processed?
Under GDPR and the upcoming EU AI Act, explainability and human oversight are key for any automated decision support. Black-box rankings of employees are highly problematic.
2.8 Language, communication and employee voice
Works councils will look at how communication and language are handled in the system.
- Is the tool fully usable in German (and other working languages)?
- Do employees get self-assessment options and space for their own comments?
- Are there guidelines or training for respectful, unbiased wording?
| Concern | Typical works council question | Safeguard HR should prepare |
|---|---|---|
| Data collected | What exactly do you store and why is it needed? | Document job-relevant fields only, no sensitive categories |
| Transparency | Can employees see and comment on their reviews? | Full employee access and a documented correction process |
| Link to decisions | Do ratings automatically drive pay or sanctions? | Separate HR processes, no automatic negative consequences |
Once you understand these priorities, you can build a structured performance management software works council checklist before the first formal meeting.
3. Performance management software works council checklist for HR
Guesswork makes negotiations slow and frustrating. A structured, internal checklist helps you clarify your own position before you sit down with the works council. Use the following sections as a practical framework.
3.1 Process design: how the performance cycle works
Clarify the basics of your performance process and how the software supports it.
| Process design question | Your answer |
|---|---|
| Which review cycles will we run (annual, semi-annual, quarterly, continuous 1:1s)? | Short description |
| Do employees complete a self-assessment before manager reviews? | Yes / No / Under discussion |
| Will we use 360° feedback (peers, direct reports, project leads)? | Yes / No / Pilot only |
| How are goals and development plans captured in the tool? | Short description |
| Will we use calibration meetings to align ratings across teams? | Yes / No / Only for some roles |
| Are rating scales and competencies configurable to our agreed framework? | Yes / No / Partially |
| How do we document 1:1 conversations and ongoing feedback? | Short description |
By answering these questions, you prepare the narrative for the works council: what the process looks like, where the software fits, and how it supports employee development rather than just control.
3.2 Data and visibility: who sees what, when
Next, define your data protection and transparency setup.
| Data & visibility question | Answer (yes/no or short) |
|---|---|
| Can every employee view their complete review record, including comments and final ratings? | Yes / No |
| Are draft manager notes visible to employees, or only once finalised? | Short description |
| Who, besides the direct manager, can see an individual’s detailed review? | List roles |
| In 360° feedback, are rater identities anonymous by default? | Yes / No / Configurable |
| Can performance data be exported to spreadsheets or BI tools? | Yes / No / Restricted |
| Are all exports logged in an audit trail? | Yes / No |
| Do employees get notified about what data is collected and how it is used? | Yes / No / Planned |
| Can HR generate aggregated reports without exposing individual names? | Yes / No |
These answers form the core of your transparency and GDPR story when you explain the tool to the council and employees.
3.3 Technical and security: infrastructure, logs and permissions
Security and technical design are often handled by IT, but the works council will expect HR to understand the basics.
| Technical & security question | Answer |
|---|---|
| Where is performance data stored and processed (EU-only data centers)? | Location |
| Is data encrypted in transit and at rest? | Yes / No |
| Do we use SSO or strong authentication for access? | Yes / No / Planned |
| Does the system keep detailed audit logs of access and changes? | Yes / No |
| Can we define granular role-based permissions (employee, manager, HR, admin)? | Yes / No / Partially |
| Is there an automated retention and deletion mechanism configured? | Yes / No / Manual |
| How is data handled when an employee leaves (archiving, deletion)? | Short description |
| Are integrations with HRIS/payroll limited to necessary fields only? | Yes / No / Under review |
You can use security certifications or vendor documentation to support your answers, but your internal policy and configuration choices are just as important as the vendor’s features.
3.4 Use in decisions: from feedback to action
Performance ratings influence careers and pay. Your checklist should make this link explicit.
| Use-in-decisions question | Answer |
|---|---|
| Will review scores directly determine bonuses or salary bands? | Yes / No / Advisory only |
| Are there any automated flags (e.g. “underperformer”) that trigger HR workflows? | Yes / No |
| Is there a separate, documented process for performance improvement plans (PIPs)? | Yes / No / In development |
| Can employees add written comments or objections before a review is final? | Yes / No |
| Do promotion and pay decisions always involve additional steps beyond the software rating? | Yes / No / Depends on level |
| Are managers trained to use reviews for development, not just rating? | Yes / No / Planned |
| Is there a clear rule that no one will be dismissed automatically based on a score? | Yes / No / In policy draft |
Treat this as your internal guardrail to keep the system focused on development and fairness, and to prevent “hidden automation” of critical HR decisions.
3.5 AI features and guardrails: keeping human control
If your performance management software uses AI, you need an explicit AI subsection in your performance management software works council checklist.
| AI & automation question | Answer |
|---|---|
| Does the system use AI for text suggestions, summaries or scoring? | Yes / No / Optional |
| Can managers fully edit or ignore AI suggestions? | Yes / No |
| Is any automated scoring used to rank employees or predict “top/low performers”? | Yes / No |
| Is AI processing limited to EU infrastructure and GDPR-compliant? | Yes / No / Under review |
| Can we explain in simple terms how AI features work to the works council? | Yes / No |
| Do we have a policy restricting AI use to assistive (not decisive) functions? | Yes / No / Drafting |
| Are there controls to reduce biased wording and flag problematic language? | Yes / No / Roadmap |
When these questions are answered internally, HR enters the discussion with a clear position instead of improvising answers in front of the council.
4. Preparing for productive collaboration with the works council
A well-structured conversation with the works council can save months of back and forth. Prepare concrete artefacts instead of abstract promises.
4.1 What to bring to the table
- Process maps: End-to-end flow from goal setting to final review and development plan, with the software touchpoints clearly marked.
- Screenshots or a demo: Actual review forms, rating scales, feedback screens, manager and employee views.
- Sample rating rubrics: Competencies, behaviour descriptions, and example comments.
- Mock reports: Anonymised team-level dashboards and organisation-wide summaries.
- Data flow diagram: Overview of where data is created, stored, accessed, and (if relevant) exported.
Companies that provide visual documentation and realistic screenshots usually experience faster approval cycles because the council can see exactly what is planned, not just hear high-level intentions.
4.2 Typical questions works councils will ask (and how HR can answer)
Prepare for these 10–12 recurring questions with clear, written answers aligned with your checklist.
| Typical works council question | Suggested HR answer style |
|---|---|
| What specific employee data will the new system collect? | List concrete fields (role, department, goals, ratings, comments) and confirm you exclude sensitive categories. |
| Who can view an employee’s review and feedback? | Explain role-based access: employee and direct manager see full details; HR sees only what is necessary; no broad access for others. |
| Will employees be able to correct errors in their records? | Describe the correction workflow, including deadlines and who updates data. |
| How exactly do the rating categories and criteria work? | Show the rubric, definitions and examples; stress that criteria are behaviour-based and agreed with the council. |
| Does a low score automatically lead to sanctions or PIPs? | Clarify that reviews trigger conversations and development steps, not automatic sanctions; PIPs follow separate, co-determined procedures. |
| How long will performance data be stored? | State the retention period, what happens after (anonymisation/deletion), and how this is technically enforced. |
| Is any AI involved in scoring or drafting reviews? | Describe which AI functions exist (if any), stress human control and editability, and offer to disable risky features. |
| Can we see example team or company reports? | Provide screenshots or printouts of anonymised dashboards that illustrate aggregation and anonymity. |
| Is the software fully available in German for both UI and templates? | Confirm localisation and show examples; outline language support for multilingual teams. |
| How will we ensure managers actually use the process correctly? | Explain manager training, reminders, and audit logs to monitor completion and quality. |
| What happens if a manager refuses to do a review? | Describe escalation rules and how the system supports tracking of missed reviews. |
| How will changes to the system be handled in future? | Commit to re-engaging the works council for material changes (new modules, criteria changes). |
By preparing written Q&A material, you show that you take co-determination seriously and reduce the risk of misunderstandings. This also becomes the basis for internal communication and training material later on.
5. Typical red flags and how to mitigate them
Even with good preparation, certain features or practices in performance management software almost always raise concerns. Address them proactively and build mitigations into your configuration and policies.
| Red flag | Why it is a problem | Mitigation option |
|---|---|---|
| Hidden scoring formulas or forced ranking | Undermines transparency; difficult to explain to employees and works council. | Disable forced distribution; share clear rating rubrics; allow manual overrides and visible calculations. |
| Unclear or unlimited data retention | Conflicts with GDPR principles and co-determination expectations. | Set explicit retention periods (e.g. 3–5 years), configure automated deletion or anonymisation, document in works agreement. |
| Unlimited exports to spreadsheets | Bypasses role-based access and audit logs; raises data leakage risk. | Limit exports to aggregate reports; log exports; require admin or HR approval; avoid raw individual exports where possible. |
| Opaque AI or predictive scoring of employees | Hard to audit for bias; may violate GDPR/AI Act expectations for explainability. | Use AI only for optional assistance (e.g. wording suggestions); ensure full human control; allow disabling of riskier modules. |
| One-sided manager evaluations without employee input | Perceived as unfair and top-down; higher dispute rate. | Make self-assessments and employee comments mandatory steps before closure; encourage joint review meetings. |
| Too complex user experience | Managers bypass the system, use side channels or enter poor-quality data. | Simplify templates; hide non-essential fields; run pilots; train managers with short guides and examples. |
| Implicit use for hidden disciplinary tracking | Destroys trust; conflicts with stated developmental goals. | Separate disciplinary records from performance reviews; define a clear policy that reviews focus on development. |
Use this matrix as a quick internal audit during vendor selection or reconfiguration. If a feature is likely to trigger a red flag, either turn it off, restrict it, or document robust safeguards before the works council brings it up.
6. Documenting agreements and internal policies
Once HR, management, and the works council are aligned, the agreed rules should be written down. This can take the form of an internal policy and, where required, a formal works agreement (Betriebsvereinbarung). The goal is clarity, not legal jargon. For detailed legal interpretation, HR should always work with internal or external legal counsel, but the building blocks are relatively standard.
6.1 Typical elements in a works council agreement on performance systems
| Policy element | Example content |
|---|---|
| Scope of use | Applies to all salaried employees except apprentices during probation. Objectives: development-focused evaluations, structured feedback, and goal tracking. |
| Data and access rules | Defines which fields are stored (e.g. role, department, goals, ratings, comments) and who can access them (employee, direct manager, HR admins); peer feedback is anonymised. |
| Retention and deletion | Specifies that detailed review data is stored for 3 years, after which records are anonymised; describes deletion process when employees leave. |
| Employee rights | Grants employees the right to view their reviews, add comments, and request correction of factual errors within a defined timeframe. |
| Link to decisions | Clarifies that performance results inform, but do not automatically dictate, promotions, pay changes or disciplinary steps; any termination follows separate procedures. |
| Manager training | Obliges managers to attend training on fair feedback, bias awareness, and proper use of the system before participating. |
| AI and automation | States whether AI features are used, their scope (e.g. text suggestions only), and confirms human oversight and the right to review AI-driven outputs. |
| Change and review process | Commits to re-opening discussions with the works council if significant changes occur (new modules, new criteria, or extended use for pay decisions). |
Many organisations also agree on regular evaluation of the system: for example, an annual joint review of completion rates, feedback quality, and employee satisfaction with the process. Aggregate survey data, using regular employee surveys, helps demonstrate whether the system is perceived as fair and useful.
Your internal resources like a performance management guide, comparisons of the best performance management software for DACH, pricing analyses, RFP templates, bias overviews, 360° feedback templates, and employee survey templates can all serve as input when drafting agreements and training material. AI-enabled performance tools that are already aligned with GDPR and EU AI Act principles can make these discussions easier, but the basic co-determination logic stays the same, no matter which tool you select.
Conclusion: Transparent alignment beats last-minute firefighting
Performance management software can strengthen development, alignment and fairness. In the DACH region, it can also become a source of conflict if works councils are involved too late or only superficially. A structured approach avoids that.
Three core messages stand out:
- Early works council involvement for any new or redesigned performance management system in Germany or Austria is essential, not optional.
- A clear performance management software works council checklist across process design, data visibility, technical safeguards, decision links and AI guardrails helps you flag and fix issues before negotiations start.
- Written agreements and policies, combined with practical manager training and transparent communication to employees, are the best protection against future disputes.
Next steps for HR teams:
- Run through the internal checklist sections before vendor demos or pilot rollouts.
- Prepare visual materials (process maps, screenshots, mock reports, data-flow diagrams) for each consultation round with your works council.
- Work closely with legal and data protection while keeping the focus on pragmatic, understandable rules for managers and employees.
As digital performance tools add more automation and AI, the need for joint governance will only grow. Co-determination does not have to slow you down. With a structured, transparent approach and a clear checklist, HR and the works council can jointly build a performance process that employees understand, trust, and actually use.
Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ)
1. What should a performance management software works council checklist include under German law?
A robust checklist should cover 5 areas: process design (review cycles, self-assessments, 360° options), data and visibility (who sees what, when), technical and security safeguards (EU hosting, encryption, audit logs, role permissions), use in decisions (how ratings link to pay, promotion, and PIPs), and AI guardrails (scope, human oversight, explainability). It does not replace legal review but structures your internal preparation.
2. How can we ensure our new appraisal tool complies with co-determination requirements?
Start by treating the rollout as a co-determination project, not just a software project. Map your process, document data flows, configure access rights and retention, and answer the checklist questions in this article. Then involve the works council early, present process maps and screenshots, and co-create agreements on assessment principles and data use. Legal and data protection teams should review drafts before signature.
3. Why do works councils in Germany and Austria focus so strongly on performance systems?
Systematic performance evaluation affects core employee rights: privacy, transparency, fairness, and access to career opportunities. Under BetrVG §94, councils co-determine assessment principles. They also have a role when evaluations influence classification or pay. Given the high impact on employees’ futures, councils treat performance tools as central governance topics rather than minor HR instruments.
4. Can we use AI-driven features like automated feedback summaries without explicit works council approval?
Using AI in performance systems without transparent discussion is risky. Councils will want to know exactly what AI does, which data it processes, and how humans can override it. AI should remain assistive, not decisive, and must comply with GDPR and emerging EU AI Act expectations. In practice, you should disclose AI usage, agree on guardrails, and document it in internal policies or works agreements before relying on these features.
5. Where can HR teams find templates or further resources for compliant performance management software selection in DACH?
Useful resources include detailed performance management guides, comparisons of the best performance management software for DACH, pricing overviews, RFP templates focused on GDPR and co-determination, analyses of performance review biases, 360° feedback templates, and employee survey templates. Combine these with legal commentary on BetrVG §94 and co-determined assessment principles, such as explanations provided by specialised German labour law firms like Rotwang Law, to design a process that works in your specific context.
Jürgen Ulbrich
Jürgen Ulbrich has more than a decade of experience in developing and leading high-performing teams and companies. As an expert in employee referral programs as well as feedback and performance processes, Jürgen has helped over 100 organizations optimize their talent acquisition and development strategies.
